Ritzie Lao

When talking about democracy and political dynasties, we are often trapped in a “chicken and egg” discourse, of which came first. Which came first—the weakening of democracy, or the rise of political dynasties? It’s hard to say. But what I do know is this: as long as political dynasties hold sway over our nation, we are trapped in a carousel that spins endlessly in a vicious cycle. The scenery may change slightly along the journey, but the destination remains the same.


Political dynasties aren’t just a part of our political system; they are the political system. Ateneo de Manila University Dean Ronald Mendoza describes political dynasties as situations where members of the same family hold elected positions, either consecutively in the same role or simultaneously in different roles. Recent data shows that over half of Congress is controlled by dynastic families.In their study, "Political Dynasties in the Philippine Congress," Mendoza et al. reveal that around 75% of district representatives, 85% of governors, and 66.67% of mayors are part of political dynasties. These dynasties largely dominate major political parties, and their candidates tend to have higher winning rates than non-dynastic candidates. The fact that this percentage has only grown over the years shows just how embedded they are not just in our government but in our political culture itself. And while it’s easy to point fingers and say that political dynasties are the root cause of our poverty, the discourse is much more complex. It’s a cycle, and we are all caught up in it.

The Senate Bill No. 2730, also known as the "Anti-Political Dynasty Law," aims to define and prohibit political dynasties, but it has yet to be passed. The 1987 Constitution, convened by then-President Corazon Aquino, includes a provision, stated in Article II, Sec. 26: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” Yet, after 37 years, no law has been enacted to define them. What made this constitutional ban unenforceable? Most likely due to the influence of dynastic families in Congress.

Political dynasties pose a significant threat to democracy by undermining political equality and concentrating power in the hands of a few elite families. The dominance of these dynasties in Philippine politics signals a deepening political inequality that correlates with worsening socioeconomic conditions. With control over human, economic, and social capital, dynastic families can manipulate elections, preventing capable and deserving individuals from entering public service. Aside from this, it also skews the political landscape, limiting choices for voters and perpetuating the rule of the elite.

The persistence of political dynasties is rooted in the unequal socioeconomic structure of Philippine society, compounded by the absence of a truly democratic electoral system and strong political parties as argued by Mendoza et. al. Without mechanisms that ensure accountability, dynastic officials can act in self-interest without fear of consequence. They often exploit wealth, popularity, political machinery, alliances, and even violence to maintain power.

Democracy, famously defined by Abraham Lincoln as "government of the people, by the people, for the people," is rooted in the Greek words "demos" (people) and "kratos" (power), translating to "power of the people." Theoretically, democracy is built on the foundation of political equality, ensuring that the voices of the people are heard and that the government responds to their needs. But the question now, does it really comes from the people? The concentration of political power in the hands of dynasties erodes these democratic ideals, making it difficult for the majority to challenge the elite's dominance. Political dynasties, by their nature, are anti-democratic because they entrench inequality and hinder the development of a truly representative political system. The persistence of dynasties shows that, despite democratic structures, in reality, true political power often does not originate from the people themselves but from entrenched elites who control the political landscape. 

It’s incredibly frustrating to witness a system where governance feels more like the passing of family heirlooms or the running of a "family business" rather than public service. This perpetuates the concentration and monopoly of power among the same names, election after election. For decades, it has been embedded in the fabric of our history. 

Corruption is often seen as an ugly byproduct of political dynasties, and it’s hard to argue against that. When power is passed down through generations, it breeds a culture of impunity. Loyalty is to the family, not to the people. We’ve seen it time and time again—funds siphoned off for personal gain, projects left unfinished, and promises broken. These aren’t isolated incident but symptoms of a much larger problem. Dynastic control has allowed corruption to fester in the cracks of our democratic system, weakening the very foundations that are supposed to uphold the rights and welfare of the people.

Additionally, in the study "Political Dynasties and Poverty: Resolving the 'Chicken or the Egg' Question," Dean Mendoza et al. delve into the longstanding debate of whether political dynasties cause poverty or if poverty perpetuates political dynasties. The findings reveal that it is poverty that entrenches political dynasties, with less evidence suggesting that political dynasties directly cause poverty. The study also differentiates between "fat" dynasties, which are more powerful and entrenched, and "thin" dynasties, which hold less influence. Dean Mendoza encapsulates the issue succinctly: "The fatter the dynasty, the poorer the community." This statement highlights how the concentration of power within dynastic families is directly linked to the stagnation of communities under their control.

Studies by Mendoza et al. (2012) and Balisacan and Fuwa (2004) reveals a clear correlation between the prevalence of political dynasties and poorer socioeconomic outcomes, particularly in human development and income growth. In provinces dominated by political dynasties, political competition diminishes, leading to reduced incentives for implementing development-focused policies. Dynastic politicians, enjoying secure control, often prioritize short-term redistributive programs that benefit their loyalists rather than fostering sustained, broad-based economic growth. This further reinforces and perpetuates patronage politic. 

Political dynasties are categorized as "fat" or "thin." "Fat dynasties" involve officials who, along with their relatives, hold multiple positions within the same province, such as having at least one relative who won a local government position in 2013. In contrast, "thin dynasties" refer to officials who have at least one relative who held a local government position in previous years (2004, 2007, or 2010) but not in 2013. Fat dynasties tend to have a more detrimental effect on poverty and development outcomes because they monopolize power at multiple levels, allowing them to control larger portions of public resources. This monopolization reduces political competition, stifles innovation, and leads to inefficient allocation of resources. Mendoza et al. (2012) found that areas with a higher prevalence of fat dynasties showed weaker indicators of human development, as the focus on self-serving policies diminishes the impact of poverty alleviation programs. Fat dynasties are particularly harmful to democratic checks and balances, as they consolidate power and foster unfairness by channeling resources into their bailiwicks, where multiple family members often hold positions of authority.

Underdevelopment, in this context, is not the core problem but a symptom of much deeper issues such as the neglect of rural areas, insufficient public services, and a failure to address systemic challenges like inequality and unemployment. Rather than addressing these, we were offered and-aid solutions designed to keep people dependent on the political elite. As long as poverty persists, so too will political dynasties, feeding off the very struggles of the people they claim to serve.

In Filipino culture, we hold deep-rooted values of "filial piety," which strengthen our ties to family and, in turn, contribute to the persistence of political dynasties in the country. This cultural connection makes us more accepting of political families. We have been raised in a culture where political families are the norm but just because something is familiar doesn’t mean it is right. We need to foster a culture of accountability and transparency, where public office is seen as a privilege to serve, not a birthright.
It’s not about whether political dynasties cause poverty or whether poverty keeps political dynasties in power. The crux of the issue is that as long as dynasties dominate our political landscape, our democracy is compromised, and we will remain stuck on this carousel. And unless we act, we will continue to spin around in circles, normalizing the concentration of power among the narrow few and watching the same names come and go, without ever moving forward. The carousel may be comfortable for some, but for the vast majority of us, it’s a ride we can no longer afford to be on.